ML20063E172
| ML20063E172 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1982 |
| From: | Earley A LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207130326 | |
| Download: ML20063E172 (6) | |
Text
,
LILCO, July 8, 1982 RELATED CORRESPONDENCR 00cv rTCO U.';,*3C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.;4 2 f 0 :32 NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-im k w..a. n
(
In the Matter of
)
)
+
LONG ISLAND LIGilTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50- 323,(OL)
-)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
i MOTION TO STRIKE A PORTION OF J AMES II. CONRAN'S REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
~
ij
.r P
I.
1 son July 1, 1982, the NRC Staff filed testimony sponsored by James 11. Conran, Sr. in rebuttal to LILCO's testimony'on i
r.
NN SC/ SOC Contention 7B and SOC Contention 19(b) -- Systems Inter-action and Safety Classification.
As indicated below, a por-l tion 'of that testimony is beyond the scope of the contentions and LILCO's testimony.
Thus, the Staff raises for the first time an issue that is not before the Board, irrelevant both to the contention and testimony and, thus, appropriately struck.
II.
Mr. Conran's rebuttal testimony discusses the Staff's view of the "Denton Memorandum" which sets out definitions for the classification of systems.
The testimony. points out that there are certain differences in terminology between that used s
i k>
8207130326'820708 PDR ADOCK 05000322 0
PDR h3 Ob
. by LILCO and the NRC Staff for classification of systems.
Testimony of LILCO and Staff witnesses demonstrates that the diffeyence in terminology does not lead to any difference in result.
In the rebuttal testimony, however, on pages 6-7, Mr. Conran discusses three implications of the different usage of the terminology.
The third such implication, listed on page 7, states that "Under Applicant's construction of
'important to safety,' the obligations imposed by 10 CFR Part 21 might be more narrowly construed than would be the case under the Staff's broader definition of that term."
This statement raises a new issue that is not within the scope of the contentions nor was it the subject of LILCO's testimony on these' contentions.
SC/ SOC Contention 7B raises the issue of whether LILCO and the Staff have applied an appropriate methodology for the classification of structures, systems and components.
SOC f
Contention 19(b) involves the related issue of whether LILCO has complied with the classification scheme set out in Regulatory Guides 1.26 and 1.29.
Neither contention raises any issue about the adequacy of LILCO's reporting procedures under 10 CFR Part 21.
Thus, the Staff's testimony is not within the scope of the contentions as admitted by the Board.
In LILCO's pre-filed written testimony and the cross-examihation on it, the methodology used for classifying struc-tures, systems and components at Shoreham, including how LILCO used the term "important to safety" i. n such classification, was
~
l
. i discussed at length.
The testimony was clearly limited to the use of "important to nafety" in the context of systems classi-f i c a t. ion.
There was abnolutely no evidence presented that suggeTited any 1 ink between the definitions discussed and the reporting r eq u i retr.e n t s in 10 CFit Part 21.
Thus, the Staff'<,
testimony in not iesponnive to any i :,s ue rained in L1LCO't, testimony.
Moreover, LILCO does not believe that LILCO's testimony on its interpretation of "important to safety" indirectly raisen an inuue related to 10 CFR Part 21.
The critical definition in l'a r t 'll with respect to classification of systems
- i. s the definition of a " basic component."
10 CPR S 21. 3 (a) (2).
That" definition does not use the term "important to safety."
In fact, "important to safety" is only used in 10 CPR @ 21. 3 ( a ) ( 3 )
in relation to the elements ( i. e._, design, incpection, testing or consulting servicen important to cafety) of a " basic i
component."
Thus, the term in used in a very different context from that discussed in LILCO's tentimony.
III.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Lirst paragraph on page 6 of the NRC Statf's rebutta1 tentimony on SC/ SOC 7B and SOC 19(b) should he struck.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LI Gilt I t;G COMi>ANY U.
Taylcr Reveley, III T.
S.
I:llin, III Isnthony F.
I:a r ley, Jr.
-.1 -
l Ilunton & Williams Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
July 8, 1982 I
l i
l i
i l
I i
l 9
l l
l i
i i
i n
In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGliTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL) a I certify that copies of the " Motion to Strike a Portion of James H.
Conran's Rebuttal Testimony on SC/ SOC 7B and SOC 4
19(b)" were served upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on July 8, 1982, or by hand on July 8,
- 1982, as indicated by an asterisk:
Lawrence Brenner, Esq.*
Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.*
Administrative Judge David A.
Repka, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory, Board Panel Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 1717 11 Street, N.W.
Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 lierbert II. Brown, Esq.*
Dr. Peter A.
Morris
- Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Administrative Judge Karla J.
Letsche, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, ' Hill, Board Panel Christopher & Phillips U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 1900 M Street, N.W.
Commission Washington, D.C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20555 Secretary of the Commission Dr. James H.
Carpenter
- U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing 1717 H Street, N.W.
Board Panel Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Appeal Board Panel l
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Walter H.
Jordan
- Commission Administrative Judge 1717 11 Street, N.W.
Atomic Safety and I _ansing Washington, D.C.
20555 Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Mr. Mark W. Goldsmith ~
Commission Energy Research Group Washington, D.C.
20555 400-1 Totten Pond Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 I
m
~
- David J.
Gilmartin, Esq.
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Attn:
Patricia A.
Dempsey, Esq.
Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
County Attorney 9 East 40th Street Suffolk County Department of Law New York, N.Y.
10016 Veterans Memorial flighway llaupppuge, New York 11787 Matthew J.
Kelly, Esq.
State of New York MIIB Technical Ascociates Department of Public Service 1723 Ilamilton Avenue 3 Empire State Plaza Suite k Albany, New York 12223 San Jose, California 95125 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Stephen B.
Latham, Eng.
New York State Energy Office Twomey, Latham & Shea Agency Building 2 33 West Second Street Empire State Plaza Box 398 Albany, New York 12223 P.
Riverhead, New York 11901 floward L.
Blau, Esq.
217 Newbridge Road
!!icksville, New York 11801
\\
. in ii<.
Anthony F.
Earley', Jr.
a llunton & Williams Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATEQ:
July 8, 1982 i
F l
l l
i I
l l
I I
1 1
]